ground wrote:Maybe you are trying to introduce another spring? If so go ahead. Human creativity must not be blocked.

Mentality, what did Jesus teach (practically) different from Samyaksambuddha? Love thy enemy? Forgive, not judge? Be perfect in love? Hate leads to the fire of hell? Is there evidence of any other teacher teaching these teachings in a total way before Samyaksambuddha?

ground wrote:Maybe you are trying to introduce another spring? If so go ahead. Human creativity must not be blocked.

Mentality, what did Jesus teach (practically) different from Samyaksambuddha?

See from my perspective "Jesus" and "Samyaksambuddha" are ideas, i.e. products of human creativity in the first place. Now one may either believe that these ideas stand for more than just themselves (i.e. have a basis that is "more" than mere ideas) or that they are just mere ideas or be agnostic ("I do not know"). Your questions are asked from the perspective of religious belief (i.e. that "Jesus" and "Samyaksambuddha" are more than just mere ideas). That is fine and I can accept your perspective but for an answer I have to refer you to yourself, to appeal to your creativity.

ground wrote:See from my perspective "Jesus" and "Samyaksambuddha" are ideas, i.e. products of human creativity in the first place.

Dalai Lama taught about when Samyaksambuddha said: "What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma". Is Dhamma really an idea? Is decaying & rotting impermanence [of the vile body] an idea? The idea "my perspective" sounds like an idea. Is ultimate reality an idea? If not, how can Samyaksambuddha be an idea when Samyaksambuddha is the same as Dhamma? Is anatta an idea? Is Jesus loves me an idea? Which of these are ideas (papanca) & which are not ideas (abhiññāya)?

Zakattack wrote:Is Dhamma really an idea? Is decaying & rotting impermanence [of the vile body] an idea? ... Is ultimate reality an idea? If not, how can Samyaksambuddha be an idea when Samyaksambuddha is the same as Dhamma? Is anatta an idea? Is Jesus loves me an idea? Which of these are ideas (papanca) & which are not ideas (abhiññāya)

What other than ideas express themselves by means of these words? Investigate whether there are more than mere ideas that express themselves by means of these words.

Zakattack wrote:The idea "my perspective" sounds like an idea. ?

It surely is. And it is merely an idea. But how to address by means of words the arisen idea that there are two spheres commonly called "you" and "me" and that the sphere expressing itself is not perceived as "you"?

It surely is. And it is merely an idea. But how to address by means of words the arisen idea that there are two spheres commonly called "you" and "me" and that the sphere expressing itself is not perceived as "you"?

We both agree "you" is an idea & "me" is an "idea". Yet we are both not in agreement that impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & Nibbana are not ideas. When water evaporates, is that impermanence an idea? That $1 billion can never bring perfect happiness, that $1 billion is unsatisfactory, is not an idea. There is not one human or animal mind that can derive perfect happiness (Nibbana) from $1 billion. That things are not-self, i.e., cannot be ultimately owned, possessed, kept, maintained (due to their impermanence) is not an idea. To me, there is an obvious difference between fleeting mind-made ideas, on one hand, and unchanging natural realities, on the other hand.

Thus it was said: "He who sees Dhamma sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma". This saying is evidence that Dhamma is not an idea, therefore Samyaksambuddha is not an idea because Samyaksambuddha is the embodiment of Dhamma (which includes Nibbana).

But Jesus, is said to impart love & forgiveness, is said to be 'Eternal'. Is love & forgiveness an (impermanent) idea or mental phenomena? Is Jesus being 'eternal' an unchanging reality or merely a fleeting mind-made idea?

These are the issues I believe are core to this matter and which support the case that Samyaksambuddha is not a mere papanca idea.

It surely is. And it is merely an idea. But how to address by means of words the arisen idea that there are two spheres commonly called "you" and "me" and that the sphere expressing itself is not perceived as "you"?

We both agree "you" is an idea & "me" is an "idea". Yet we are both not in agreement that impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & Nibbana are not ideas.

No. It is obvious that before you write " impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & Nibbana" there must have arisen the idea corresponding to these words.Now you seem to insist that your ideas are more than just ideas for which you can never provide evidence. All you can do is to express more ideas which you believe do support the former ideas. But the sphere of mere ideas is never gone beyond. It is mere belief. It is just "in your head" so to say. You may however find others who "share" your beliefs. That's for sure. That is the nature of religion: People sharing (at least similar) beliefs, applying the same words in special contexts from which one usually concludes that their beliefs are identical which however is not sure since the words are not the ideas.

Zakattack wrote:... I believe ...

Sure. A belief is an idea being mentally affirmed as more than just that.

Having said that this does not exclude that ideas originating dependently from human creativity as a means of dealing with human dilemma may have benefits for humans and since this may be the case in the context of all religious ideas it has been said above:

ground wrote:When there are two springs conveying water that originates from the same subterrestrial water reservoir it may not be appropriate to say that one spring "borrows" from the other spring.

ground wrote:No. It is obvious that before you write " impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & Nibbana" there must have arisen the idea corresponding to these words.Now you seem to insist that your ideas are more than just ideas for which you can never provide evidence. All you can do is to express more ideas which you believe do support the former ideas. But the sphere of mere ideas is never gone beyond. It is mere belief. It is just "in your head" so to say. You may however find others who "share" your beliefs. That's for sure. That is the nature of religion: People sharing (at least similar) beliefs, applying the same words in special contexts from which one usually concludes that their beliefs are identical which however is not sure since the words are not the ideas.

Here, and before, you seem to be saying that phenomena have an inherent nature of one kind or another, and that a person can know this nature firsthand, without having to be specifically trained - and biased - to see it that way.

ground wrote:No. It is obvious that before you write " impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & Nibbana" there must have arisen the idea corresponding to these words.Now you seem to insist that your ideas are more than just ideas for which you can never provide evidence. All you can do is to express more ideas which you believe do support the former ideas. But the sphere of mere ideas is never gone beyond. It is mere belief. It is just "in your head" so to say. You may however find others who "share" your beliefs. That's for sure. That is the nature of religion: People sharing (at least similar) beliefs, applying the same words in special contexts from which one usually concludes that their beliefs are identical which however is not sure since the words are not the ideas.

Here, and before, you seem to be saying that phenomena have an inherent nature of one kind or another, and that a person can know this nature firsthand, without having to be specifically trained - and biased - to see it that way.

It may seem to you. But what seems are just your ideas. When you say it seems that I am saying you should quote the words that cause these ideas of yours.

binocular wrote:On the other hand, you say that "Jesus" etc. are just ideas.

Jesus or Buddha, no difference. Or can you put your hands on them?Nevertheless I can read "the words of the Buddha" or "the words of Jesus". So people say and so do I say.

alan wrote:Christianity is nonsense, and it did not borrow from Buddhism. The idea itself is preposterous.

Just google "zen christianity", for example. Plenty of hits.At least nowadays, some people who consider themselves "Christians" do borrow from Buddhism.I personally knew a guy who considered himself a "Zen Christian."

ground wrote:No. It is obvious that before you write " impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & Nibbana" there must have arisen the idea corresponding to these words. Now you seem to insist that your ideas are more than just ideas for which you can never provide evidence.

Evidence was provided. When water evaporates, is that evaporation an idea? When the body decays, is that decay an idea? When breathing changes, is that change an idea? If those examples of impermanence were ideas then that impermanence could be stopped by changing the idea. But since ideas cannot stop impermanence, impermanence is not an idea. For your consideration, Buddha taught, for the 'birth' of five arahants:

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to disease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to disease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

"Feeling is not self...

"Perception is not self...

"[Mental] fabrications are not self...

"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to disease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to disease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'

alan wrote:Christianity is nonsense, and it did not borrow from Buddhism. The idea itself is preposterous.

For Israel, Jesus provided what are regarded to be a number of revolutionary teachings, such as "Love Thy Enemy", "Be Perfect in Love", "Good Samaritan", "Forgive 777 times", etc. These teachings have no root in Judaism. Much of the OT is prayers for revenge upon an enemy. But most, if not all, of the revolutionary teachings have roots in Buddhism. The language of Jesus, such as "actions & fruits", "not thirsting (tanha) again", "cultivating (bhavana) a field (gocara)", "spiritual friend (kalyanamitta)", "born again", "Kingdom of Heaven (Brahma Loka)", etc, have roots in Buddhism. The notion of "God is Love" also has its root in the Brahma Vihara & particularly Tevijja Sutta. Although metta rather than enlightenment teachings, they are likely borrowed from Buddhism.

ground wrote:No. It is obvious that before you write " impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & Nibbana" there must have arisen the idea corresponding to these words. Now you seem to insist that your ideas are more than just ideas for which you can never provide evidence.

Evidence was provided.

You provided an idea to support your idea. Yes, there may arise the idea "evidence". Self affirms itself and calls this "evidence".

Zakattack wrote:When water evaporates, is that evaporation an idea?

Yes, is it more than just an idea? Investigate!

Zakattack wrote:When the body decays, is that decay an idea?

Yes, is it more than just an idea? Investigate!

Zakattack wrote:When breathing changes, is that change an idea?

Yes, is it more than just an idea? Investigate!

Zakattack wrote:If those examples of impermanence were ideas then that impermanence could be stopped by changing the idea.

So you think that you can write down these without thinking the corresponding ideas? You seem to confuse "being conditioned to perceive as X" on the one hand and the thought of "X being independent of perception" on the other hand. Since you cannot discern dependent arising of "perceiving as X" X appears to you as if being independent of "perception as X".

Zakattack wrote:But since ideas cannot stop impermanence, impermanence is not an idea.

Then what is it? How does it look, taste, smell, sound? Can it be touched?

Zakattack wrote:For Israel, Jesus provided what are regarded to be a number of revolutionary teachings, such as "Love Thy Enemy", "Be Perfect in Love", "Good Samaritan", "Forgive 777 times", etc. These teachings have no root in Judaism. Much of the OT is prayers for revenge upon an enemy. But most, if not all, of the revolutionary teachings have roots in Buddhism. The language of Jesus, such as "actions & fruits", "not thirsting (tanha) again", "cultivating (bhavana) a field (gocara)", "spiritual friend (kalyanamitta)", "born again", "Kingdom of Heaven (Brahma Loka)", etc, have roots in Buddhism. The notion of "God is Love" also has its root in the Brahma Vihara & particularly Tevijja Sutta. Although metta rather than enlightenment teachings, they are likely borrowed from Buddhism.

Why do you think it is relevant that Christianity borrowed (as per you) some teachings from Buddhism?

alan wrote:Christianity is nonsense, and it did not borrow from Buddhism. The idea itself is preposterous.

Glad to see you are back, PeterB. Are you willing to explain your position?

Not back as such Alan..some topics catch my eye.I am not sure there is anything to explain. I converted to the Orthodox Church a couple of years ago and am happy in it.

P.

Strange, I was an Orthodox inquirer back when I was Christian. Maybe there is a link between Christianity and Buddhism after all I at least think they share some themes in common.

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared." Iti 26

ground wrote:You seem to confuse "being conditioned to perceive as X" on the one hand and the thought of "X being independent of perception" on the other hand. Since you cannot discern dependent arising of "perceiving as X" X appears to you as if being independent of "perception as X".

Vipassana is not "being conditioned" to perceive X. Vipassana is perceiving things as they really are. 'Perception' here is not ordinary perception (sanna) but enlightened perception called fully comprehension (abhiññāya), as I posted earlier. Abhiññāya is not an 'idea'.

I am certainly asserting a reality independent of perception, as Buddha did in AN 3.134. I understand, predictably, you will possibly attempt to refute this will other suttas, such as the Sabba Sutta.

Vipassana (seeing things as they really are) does not occur independent of perception. However, those realities that are objects of vipassana are occurring independent of perception. For example, bacteria decaying physical matter is occurring independent of perception, i.e., unless one uses a microscope to perceive those bacteria. This principle Buddha established in AN 3.134.

Vipassana is seeing things as they really are. It is not seeing things as the mind subjectively perceives things to be. MN 152 is about mastery of perception, where "he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome", etc. But MN 152 does not extend to "he remains percipient of the impermanent in the presence of what is permanent"; "he remains percipient of self in the presence of what is not self"; etc.

In summary, the mind truly free from attachment, will not take so seriously, i.e., regard as a 'creator God', its perceptions. In the Phena Sutta, it is explained, ultimately, perceptions have no substance; they are like a mirage. But the Biblical Genesis seems to be about creation via perception. You have made it quite clear that the process of 'creation' is important to you.

In AN 3.134, it explained impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self existed prior to Buddha's perception of them. Where as your point of view appears to align with that of the Biblical Genesis, that is, before perception, the earth was (literally) formless and empty.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.